Vote totals:
Yes:
40%
No:
60%
Neutral:
0%
DEBATE: THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Voting is a right young people are entitled to
As voting is the central way in which citizens express their judgement and support of government policy, it is only fair that those who are affected by major government decisions are given the opportunity to express their opinions via the ballot box.
Sixteen and seventeen year-olds can join the armed forces, raise a family and pay tax. If you can die for your country, get married, have children and pay towards society, you should have the right to indicate your feelings to the government.
Sixteen and seventeen year-olds are restricted from front line duty, it is true they usually sign-up for a minimum of four years and so are making decisions which may place their lives in danger for half of their service, this half also coincides with the period at which they can vote.
Young people of this age can only marry with their parents permission and yes, having legal responsibility over ones sex life shouldn’t be underestimated it doesn’t mean that people should be given the right, through voting, to have responsibility over wider society.
Finally, if the argument that people who pay taxation should be entitled to representation is taken to its logical conclusion, then even five year-olds should be able to vote because the goods they buy with their pocket money are subject to VAT
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Giving young people the vote would make them more engaged in society
Currently many young people are deprived of democratic participation until they are 23. Opening up voting to 16 and 17 year olds would ensure that they get the opportunity to vote from a younger age and it is more likely to be seen as an essential element of the transition to adulthood. 18 year olds are often more transient – they are more likely to be leaving home, working full time or starting university. At this busy time of life voting can all too easily drop down the list of priorities.
The exclusion of 16 and 17 year olds from elections is fuelling the disengagement of 18-24 year olds. The longer young people are denied involvement in the formal democratic process, the less chance there is of engaging them ever. There is no evidence to suggest that once 18, young people are likely to become more engaged.
It is a logical fallacy to suggest that if 18 year olds, who are affected by a wider array of political issues, such as employment law, universities etc. are not engaged with the political process, then those of a younger age will be.
If we’re having trouble getting those who are allowed to vote to actually vote, then the solution is to give them better reasons to do so: by increasing the prevalence of political education, by forcing parties to start appealing to the whole electorate, to empower the public so as to make them believe they can change politics, and perhaps even to change the electoral system to make our parliaments better reflect the public opinion.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
If they are old enough to die for their country they are old enough to vote
if its OK for governments to send young people at 16 17 into war zones then their is no moral arguement for not allowing them the opportunity to elect the government wich may snd them to tehirdeaths or otherwise
The way to negage oung people in poitics is at school and votes for 16 will bring that forward
Cllr Steve Radford
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Young people are too immature
When young people are involved in a meaningful democratic process they respond with enthusiasm and responsibility. Many people of all ages are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of passion and enthusiasm for politics and for change, a phenomenon that manifests across all age groups in engagement in single issue campaigns and protests.
Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others.
In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. Whilst young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years.
Young people haven’t developed critical thinking faculties which allow them to choose between parties. Young people are highly impressionable and are likely to be swayed by the last opinion they heard – especially if this was aired by someone attractive.
Proof of their immaturity can be found in their preference for single issue campaigns over the complexity of a political party. It takes life experience to understand the need for political parties and young people simply don’t have this.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Lowering the voting age would lead to a lower turnout in elections
Analysis by the Electoral Reform Society shows that if 16-18 year olds turned out in the same proportion as the 18-24 age group, there would be virtually no effect on turnout. Even if not one 16-18 year old voted, overall turnout would drop by only 2%.
Women are less likely to vote than men, poor people less likely than the more affluent and people from minority ethnic groups less than white people. Nobody suggests that these lower turnout groups should have their voting rights removed. No one should suggest that some 16 and 17 year olds not voting is a good enough reason to deny the many that do want to vote.
A larger voting population made up of younger voters, who are less likely to vote, would reduce the overall turnout. Turnout is already very low and the lower it gets the more people opt-out of the political process. If this gets much worse we run the risk of living in a society where all the decisions affecting our lives are made by the few who can be bothered to go out and vote.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Time, Awareness and Propaganda
16-18 yar olds will vote according to what they beleive and what they have time for. If some are too busy studying for exams that shouldn’t mean none of them can vote. Those that have time will make an informed decision and make their voice heard. There is still a large enough percent of older voters to stop a young, totally inexperienced person to be elected just by young people.
Many teenagers have many more important things to think about such as schoolwork and their futures. Exams are already a huge stress for 16-18 year olds as they determine what the rest of their life will entail. Time to research the issues that determine which party would be a better choice, is something that many teenagers simply dont have.
Care must be taken not to stereotype all teenagers. Like the adult population, there would be a split between ‘the interested’ and ‘the blissfully unaware’.
The blissfully unaware section would not care about current affairs unless watching popular television programmes, such as "Have I Got News For You" or "Mock The Week", which give undoubtedly biased opinions on issues of the day.
The main issue with dealing with younger votersis their attention. Entertain them and they will listen. The younger- and more immature – the person the more susceptable they are to propaganda. Political parties will use propaganda to sway voters from this age group and we may see younger, less experienced parties and ministers take control mainly because of their own youth rather than their stance on political issues.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
It makes little difference on its own
Even if "Only the voters who want to vote will" it will increase voter turnout. People will vote if they think they can make a difference and if they believe in what they are voting for. 16-17 year olds will vote if they care about the issues and have the ability to be heard. It will increase young voter turnout if simply because more people are allowed to vote.
The Electoral Reform Society has the objectives of reducing the spread of political apathy: the ERS has tried to reach this goal by acting on the general principle that it is voting accessability which is key. They feel that as people perceive politics as more alien and separated from their everyday lives, they have to compensate by making voting more attractive: Postal voting, providing a choice of polling stations in more accessible areas such as shopping centers, voting on holidays or weekends, or the option of putting a ‘non of the above’ option are some of the new ideas which have been discussed or practised.
The thought that giving 16-17 year olds the vote will increase their chances of political engagement is fallous. Those with the interest will vote, those who do not, won’t. In order to make lifelong political engagement more likely, a larger rehaul of the way the political system operates needs to be thought out. Larger and more ambitious changes such as Electoral Reform, as well as the development of more opportunities for popular political discourse and feedback.
I cannot foresee that this change will bring any real positive changes regarding voter listlessness on its own, but as part of a larger campaign for a reignition of the voice of the masses, a civil society, it is going to be more meaningful and effective.
THE VOTING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED TO 16 --- SPONSORED BY THE ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY
Young voters would abuse the right to vote
The people who don’t understand voting and who may vote for an unqualified person because of their fame will have no effect on the overall election. The people who care and make informed decisions will be the ones who will alter the overall results.
While there are some mature youths (like myself) there are some who are simply not meant to be voting at this age. Most don’t have a clear enough grasp on current events or politics to make an informed decision and would simply abuse the system by voting recklessly and unimformed. This can do nothing but hurt our country in the long run, because as I look around my high school the number of moronic young people there are roaming the halls is revolting. I would hate to think those people could vote on the next president!
